Standing Committee A

[Miss Ann Widdecombe in the Chair]

Police Reform Bill [Lords]

Schedule 2 - The Independent Police - Complaints Commission

Amendment proposed [this day]: No. 80, in page 96, line 32, leave out sub-paragraph (3).—[Mr. Paice.] 
 Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.

Ann Widdecombe: I remind the Committee that with this we are taking amendment No. 81, in page 97, line 16, leave out sub-paragraph (5).
 May I remind hon. Members that mobile phones and pagers should be operating silently or not at all? I shall take a dim view of anything that rings in the middle of the afternoon.

Bob Ainsworth: Thank you, Miss Widdecombe, and welcome to the Chair.
 When our sitting ended this morning, I was being accused of deviously trying to avoid answering a question. Although that is not true, the compliment is always welcome. I had cross-wired my brain to a debate that we will have under amendment No. 85, which relates to clause 10 and is about the disclosure of reports. 
 I was wiring myself into that future debate in response to a point made by the hon. Member for Lewes (Norman Baker). We were talking about the fact that the power to decline an appointment of the chief executive of the Independent Police Complaints Commission is reserved to the Secretary of State. The provisions in the Bill fully come under the Nolan arrangements and those of the Office of the Commissioner for Public Appointments; I should have thought that that would satisfy hon. Members. The provisions are exactly in line with what applies in other cases, such as that of the security industry authority and the Health and Safety Executive. They will in no way undermine the independence of the IPCC. 
 The hon. Gentleman asked me whether, if such an appointment were turned down, the reason would be put in the public domain. It probably would not. If such an issue arose, it would be highly likely that the reasons for the refusal had to do with the personal attributes, competence or ability of the candidate, and it would be wholly inappropriate for the Secretary of State to put the issue in the public domain. Of course, such matters will always be subject to parliamentary scrutiny, and if someone were to ask a parliamentary question, the fact that such an appointment had been turned down would have to be acknowledged. 
 The Bill as written is perfectly justifiable. The provision in no way impairs the independence of the IPCC. I therefore contest that the Bill should stand as drafted.

Norman Baker: I, too, welcome you to the Chair, Miss Widdecombe. I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for giving a straight answer. I must confess that in the 60 seconds before the Committee adjourned this morning, we had a sort of anti-matter ''Just a Minute'' in which he tried to deviate, hesitate and repeat as much as possible in order to get by without answering the question.
 I understand the Under-Secretary's answer, and why he has come to that conclusion, but it does not exactly square with the commitment to accountability that he was keen to stress before lunch as the reason why the Home Secretary had to be involved. He argued that that was in order for Parliament to have a say in the matter and have some sort of lever to pull. Now he is arguing that if the Home Secretary turns down an appointment, we will know nothing about it unless people such as myself ask parliamentary questions. You will note, Miss Widdecombe, the Under-Secretary's invitation for me to do just that. 
 Surely it would be possible for the fact that an appointment had been rejected to be made public without the reasons behind such an action being made public. A safeguard needs to be inserted. Let us suppose that the commission recommended someone for the key position, who had through public statements or other aspects of his or her life demonstrated a commitment to, say, freedom of information or independence of thought, or that he or she was of a different political persuasion from the Home Secretary of the day. If that person were turned down—having been recommended by the commission that concluded that he or she was the best person for the job—it should be a matter for public record that the Home Secretary had taken such action.

Ian Lucas: In those circumstances, it is likely that the Home Secretary would be held to account. Given that the refusal to endorse such a person would be on the public record, I have no doubt that hon. Members would take it up with my right hon. Friend.

Norman Baker: That would be true if the matter were on the public record. The condition that I support would then be satisfied. It would also be possible for the commission to make a recommendation, without that being known. We could conclude only from what took place in a particular set of circumstances that the successful candidate was the commission's first recommendation. It would take a parliamentary question to establish whether there had been a previous suggestion for the post. I hope that I have made it clear that the Government's commitment to accountability is a little threadbare.

James Paice: I welcome you to the Chair of our proceedings, Miss Widdecombe. I served under you when you were a member of the Government and a member of the Opposition, and I am delighted to serve under your
 chairmanship in Committee. Much of the debate will be foreign to you inasmuch as you were not party to the bulk of the Under-Secretary's response this morning.
 At the risk of over-flattering the Under-Secretary with compliments such as those that he attributed to the hon. Member for Lewes, I must say that he has failed miserably to convince us that our amendment is wrong, although he may take that statement as a substantial compliment about the way in which he fulfils his job. His two arguments against the amendments were, first, that the Secretary of State has to appoint a chief executive to get on with the job and set up the commission. We accept that, but it does not negate the strength of our argument that the Secretary of State should not then have the power of veto over each chief executive who may be appointed for ever and a day after that. 
 As was said constantly during the proceedings on the Bill both here and in another place, we must bear in mind not only today's set of Ministers, but those of tomorrow and every set of future Home Office Ministers. As one of my noble Friends in the other place said, the situation must be successor proof. The argument that the Secretary of State must appoint the first chief executive is no justification for the Bill saying that he should approve the appointment of all chief executives beyond that. 
 The Under-Secretary's argument against the second amendment stretched credulity. He somehow equated our request to remove from the Bill the power of the Secretary of State to determine the number, terms and conditions of all the employees of the commission with rate-capping. The reality is that the Government will set the overall budget allocation of the commission. That is a simple fact of life. As with any non-departmental public body, they set the overall financial constraints. The Government will always have some sway. A constraint, or public protection is therefore provided to prevent the commission from becoming a vast, overweening bureaucracy employing ever-larger numbers of people, to compete with the national health service. It will be constrained by the budget. I therefore do not understand why the Secretary of State also requires the power to set the absolute number of staff and their terms and conditions of employment. 
 I do not believe that the Under-Secretary has given a good response. We have a lot to do this afternoon if we are to complete part 2 before the knife falls at 5 o'clock, so I shall not detain the Committee further on the amendments, which, as I said, are relatively small. However, if anything, the Under-Secretary has enhanced my concern about the use of the powers, rather than diminished it. That said, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Schedule 2 agreed to.

Clause 9 - General functions of the Commission

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 8, line 38, leave out 'broadly'.
 I, too, welcome you to the first sitting that you have chaired, Miss Widdecombe. Like my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire (Mr. Paice), I have had the pleasure of working under you in other work in the House, and I welcome the fact that you will chair some of our sittings. 
 The amendment to clause 9(1)(f) is a probing amendment. We were puzzled by unfamiliar drafting. I do not recall having seen in other statutes references to things that ''broadly'' correspond, which seems rather inexact drafting. That struck us as important to probe. As my hon. Friend says, one often finds in probing that the Government's answers raise even more questions than the initial questions. As he said, he was less happy at the end of the previous debate than at the beginning. This may be a similar matter. 
 The Secretary of State will make regulations relating to the National Criminal Intelligence Service and the National Crime Squad, two important bodies that deal with the most serious offences. I recently met the director of the National Crime Squad, who briefed me about its important work. Few bodies are more important in law enforcement in this country, because of the responsibilities that NCIS and the NCS have. Why are we dealing with such a vague term as powers that ''broadly'' correspond to those conferred on the commission? 
 Like my hon. Friend, I do not want to detain the Committee too long, so, having put our concern on record, I shall listen with interest to the Under-Secretary's comments.

Bob Ainsworth: The amendment would ensure that, if the regulations require the IPCC to carry out functions in relation to NCIS, the NCS or bodies of constables maintained other than by police authorities, those functions must correspond exactly to those of the IPCC in relation to Home Office forces. For the commission to have functions with respect to NCIS—

Nick Hawkins: I want to prevent the Under-Secretary from falling into a trap. He referred to ''Home Office forces'', but I believe that he meant to say ''police forces''. I do not believe that this country yet has Home Office forces.

Bob Ainsworth: Let me avoid unnecessary delay. I meant the 43 police forces covered by the IPCC under the Bill. Let us sidestep that issue and get on with the meat of the amendment.
 For the commission to have functions with regard to NCIS and the NCS, the Secretary of State must make regulations to bring them into the new scheme. With regard to other forces, the commission can enter into an agreement with the approval of the Secretary of State. 
 NCIS and the NCS are covered by the current system through regulations, and they will be brought 
 into the new system in the same way. Most other non-Home Office forces—''non-43 forces,'' if that suits the hon. Gentleman—have also decided to come into the current system. In clauses 23 and 24, we have provided for the Government also to bring these organisations into the new system. It is appropriate to provide for these bodies to be brought into the new system, and within the remit of the commission, by regulations or agreement, and for there to be a certain degree of flexibility, because there will be real differences between them and other police forces. For example, each of these forces are maintained by a different authority, and each authority has a slightly different role and terminology with regard to the officers concerned. Moreover, the forces have different areas of jurisdiction, so we need to study the specific wording of the regulations and tailor it to reflect the specialisation of some of these forces and their differences from other police forces—hence the importance of the word ''broadly''. They cannot just be straightforwardly absorbed into the mainstream complaints system. The provisions allow for the new system to be extended to those forces, while also taking their differences into account. 
 It is not the intention to introduce something that widely differs from that which applies to others but, as I have said, there are different structures and terminologies, and as this is a statutory provision, that flexibility is needed in order to tailor these provisions to the particular forces in question. That is why we are going down this road: we have no agenda to do something radically different from that which will apply to the normal police force.

Nick Hawkins: I am somewhat reassured by the Under-Secretary's remarks and, under the ruling in Pepper v. Hart, if this or any future Government were to try to encourage the commission to do something radically different, the Under-Secretary's words could be referred to.
 Therefore, I acknowledge that on this occasion—if not, perhaps, on others—we might have been a little too suspicious. However, it is helpful to have the Under-Secretary's reassurance on the record, and having got that, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Amendment made: No. 152, in page 9, line 8, after 'constables);' insert— 
'(bb) any regulations under section (Police powers for contracted-out staff);'.—[Mr. Ainsworth.]

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 150, in page 9, line 23, leave out sub-paragraph (ii).
 I suspect that the Under-Secretary and other Committee members wonder what is the purpose of removing this sub-paragraph. I assure the Under-Secretary that it is a probing amendment; I have no intention of pressing it to a Division. However, the sub-paragraph raises the issue of victimisation, and that is why I have tabled the amendment. At the outset, it was intended to try to establish what was the Government's view, not about protecting someone who complains about alleged misconduct—which is what the sub-paragraph addresses—but about 
 whistle-blowing and protecting a police officer, or a community support officer, or someone on a sub-contract. 
 On Second Reading, the Under-Secretary said that the Government intended to introduce amendments to achieve that. I trust that I am quoting the hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) correctly when I say that paragraph 79 of the Home Affairs Committee's report on the Bill stated: 
''We recommend that the Bill be amended to bring police officers within the Public Disclosure at Work Act 1998.''
 The amendment's sole purpose is to challenge the Government to tell us when they will do that. Umpteen amendments have been tabled, and 100 amendments were tabled the very day that we rose for the Whitsun recess. I am astonished that the Government have not fulfilled their undertaking. Will the Under-Secretary tell us when that will happen?

Bob Ainsworth: I am quite worried by what the hon. Gentleman said. I really hope that he will not withdraw the amendment because I was going to accept it.
 The provision was part of a package to ensure that police officers receive protection from unfair treatment or discrimination if they report wrongdoing in the police service. In Committee in another place, my noble friend Lord Bassam said that we were happy to consider an amendment to allow police officers to be covered by the protection afforded by the Public Interest Disclosure Act 1998 as an alternative to the provision in clause 9(4)(b)(ii). Lord Bassam said that if we brought forward an amendment to that effect, the provision in clause 9 would be redundant. 
 My right hon. Friend the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety subsequently repeated that intention on Second Reading. The appropriate Government amendments will be tabled shortly. In all probability, they have been tabled now and a letter is in the post to the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire to inform him of that. We shall discuss those amendments on 27 June. It is appropriate and necessary to make changes to clause 9. 
 If the hon. Gentleman does not withdraw his amendment, I shall accept it. We will make the necessary omission from clause 9. The appropriate amendments will be tabled in good time to allow us to make a provision that I believe enjoys agreement throughout the Committee. I urge the hon. Gentleman to press his amendment to the vote so that we can accept it.

James Paice: I wish that I had tabled more probing amendments that I did not intend to press to the vote because we might have achieved more success if I had adopted such a strategy.
 I listened to the Under-Secretary carefully. I am anxious to be helpful because, as he said, we share the same objective. I ask him to clarify one point and perhaps he will intervene, if that is appropriate. 
 As the clause is drafted, the provision goes beyond whistleblowers. It protects anybody who reports misconduct whether a whistleblower or an ordinary 
 member of the public who complains but is worried that a police officer might try and exact revenge for the wrong reason. I am wary not to remove that protection by removing the provision from the Bill. 
 I shall keep rabbiting on to allow the Under-Secretary to be briefed. It is sensible that anyone who alleges misconduct is protected from victimisation. That should not only apply to whistleblowers.

Nick Hawkins: It occurred to me that if my hon. Friend gave way, it might give the officials more time to scribble their note. Does my hon. Friend agree that if there is any uncertainty on whether other categories of people might need the protection afforded by sub-paragraph (ii), it may be wiser to not to pursue the amendment now, but to wait until we see the precise terms of the Government amendment? There would still be time to make any consequential amendments to clause 9 on Report to ensure that we do not lose the protection that so concerns my hon. Friend.

James Paice: My hon. Friend has made a constructive suggestion about how to move forward—unless the Under-Secretary is able to resolve the issue now. Does the hon. Member for Lewes still wish to intervene, or is the Under-Secretary able to move fast enough to respond to my point before I sit down?

Norman Baker: I wanted to echo the thoughts of the hon. Member for Surrey Heath (Mr. Hawkins), and my intervention will allow more time for the Under-Secretary to be briefed. It is a novel situation indeed when an hon. Member wishes to withdraw an amendment that he has tabled, but the Government wish to accept it. I have not come across such a thing before. Would the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire agree that it would be useful for the Under-Secretary to intervene at this point, because we are running out of things to say?

James Paice: I am always open to constructive suggestions from wherever they come. Far be it for me to stand in their way. However, despite the hilarity and jocularity of the last few moments, this is a serious point: we do not wish to remove the protection that would apply to anyone else who reports misconduct simply to ensure that police officers are brought within the Public Disclosure at Work Act 1998. A lot depends on the content of the Government amendments that the Under-Secretary believes have been tabled today.

Bob Ainsworth: As I said, it is unfortunate that the hon. Member for South-East Cambridgeshire cannot see the new Government amendments before I effectively ask him to withdraw this one. I hope that I can assure him that, if any dangers remain after he has seen those amendments, we will do whatever is necessary to try to ensure that there is an opportunity for him to make his concerns known. I had hoped to have done things differently, and that he would have been able to see exactly our intentions before I asked him to withdraw the amendment. However, in order to make the provisions, we need the clause to be amended. As far as I am aware, we are not trying to do anything untoward or that would remove protections within the Bill.
 I do not know how else to go forward. I was surprised when the hon. Gentleman said that this was a probing amendment and that he did not intend to push it to a Division. I can only give him my assurance: I can go no further.

James Paice: I assure the Under-Secretary that his surprise was nothing compared with mine when he said that he was going to accept the amendment. I am happy to accept the Under-Secretary's assurances that the Government amendments being tabled will deal not only with the issue relating to the Public Disclosure at Work Act but will retain protection from victimisation for other persons who report misconduct. Should we have concerns that the amendments are inadequate, I accept his assurance that he will seek to put the clause right on Report.
 Amendment agreed to.

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 84, in page 9, line 44, at end insert
'provided that such charge is reasonable and based on the cost of carrying out that function.'.
 The amendment relates to a matter of substance, rather like the one that has just been resolved in an unusual way—the substantial issue of cost to the public purse. For a statute to say: 
''The Commission may . . . impose any such charge on that person for anything done by the Commission for the purposes of, or in connection with, the carrying out of that function as it thinks fit.''
 is a wide power indeed, and we strongly believe that there should be constraint on that. It would be lovely to think that the Under-Secretary will respond in the way in which he did to my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and say that we are absolutely right and that the Government will accept the amendment. I shall not say that the amendment is probing but I will listen carefully to whether the Government accept it. 
 We make a serious point. We do not like the idea that any Bill contains wording which says that even a body such as the IPCC, which I am sure will be virtuous and helpful, has an unfettered right to 
''impose any such charge . . . for anything done by the Commission for . . . the carrying out of that function as it thinks fit.''
 That provision is much too wide. There must be a constraint to include reasonableness, which is usually introduced in our law, and the provision must be based on real cost. 
 I am always worried by the compliance cost of any Bill, and especially a Bill from the current Government. I know that we have compliance cost assessments on what measures will cost the Government and taxpayer, but we are discussing the cost to other people of the commission making any recommendation or giving any advice to any person. We need safeguards, and if the Under-Secretary cannot accept the amendment, I hope that he and his officials will consider tabling a revised version of our amendment on Report.

Bob Ainsworth: It is not in anybody's interest for the IPCC to make unreasonable charges. The purpose of the provision is to allow it to recoup expenditure for
 giving advice or recommendations, perhaps via a seminar or publication.
 Subsection (7) already implies that the charge must relate to anything done in pursuance of the functions for which charging is allowed. Furthermore, the IPCC is expected to charge only enough to recoup its costs. Any income made must be returned, unless the Home Secretary directs otherwise. The Home Secretary would subsequently have to return that income to the consolidated fund. 
 The IPCC has no incentive to make a profit. It will exist to perform a function, and it will recoup its costs. Many statutes are written in such a way. The dissemination of best practice is a function of the commission. It would be unreasonable for the commission to impose charges that would hinder that function. That represents a significant constraint on the charge that could be imposed. It would be extremely difficult for the commission to fulfil its statutory function if it overcharged. 
 We believe that the Bill contains sufficient safeguards against overcharging. The amendment is unnecessary and, given my assurances, I ask the hon. Member for Surrey Heath to withdraw it.

Norman Baker: I am a little concerned about what the Under-Secretary said. The concept of reasonableness, which is in the amendment, is not unusual. Indeed, it has featured in all the Bills to which I have been party. I am surprised that he objects to the wording of the amendment. The phrase ''as it thinks fit'' in subsection (7) seems to give carte blanche to the commission to do what it likes.
 I am unclear about what would happen if a person who was subject to such a charge considered that it was unreasonable and wished to challenge it. If the word ''reasonable'' was in the Bill, that would give such a person a hook on which to challenge a charge. In the absence of the word ''reasonable'', and with the presence of the phrase ''as it thinks fit'', it might be difficult for a challenge to be successful. For those reasons, I have considerable sympathy with the Conservative amendment.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his support. My concern remains, although the Under-Secretary has done his best to be reassuring. The Under-Secretary says that he does not want any extra constraints, but when he and his advisors have thought about the matter, and when they have listened to the debate and to my concerns and those of the hon. Gentleman, I wonder whether the Government will think, ''Well, perhaps it wouldn't be a bad idea to reintroduce a Government amendment along the lines of amendment No. 84.'' We would be delighted if they did that on Report.
 At the moment we have the Under-Secretary's reassurances. I would rather have the provision in the Bill, but as he has given some reassuring words that can be referred back to under Pepper v. Hart, I do not feel inclined to detain the Committee with a Division. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 9, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 10 - Reports to the Secretary of State

Nick Hawkins: I beg to move amendment No. 85, in page 10, line 22, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
 This is a small but important amendment. As the clause stands, when the Secretary of State receives a report that falls under subsection (5), he only has to lay a copy of it before Parliament and cause it to be published 
''if and to the extent that he considers it appropriate to do so''.
 We do not think that it is sensible to attach that condition to the Secretary of State's duties. We think that any report made to the Secretary of State on something as important as the matters dealt with in part 2, which relates to complaints, misconduct and reports from the IPCC, should come before Parliament. After all, we are here to consider matters of concern. 
 If the IPCC thinks something is sufficiently important to report on it to the Secretary of State, surely every Member of Parliament should see that report. I cannot think of many issues that have caused more controversy and used more parliamentary time than complaints about police. There have been acres of newsprint on the subject, some justified and some not. In the more than 10 years in which I have been in the House, and in the many years before that when I practised at the Bar, police complaints were a matter of huge public and media concern. 
 If the new independent commission, which will reassure many of those who thought that the old Police Complaints Authority was not sufficiently independent, makes a report about something, it should not be left to this or a future Secretary of State to decide whether it is convenient for Parliament to have sight of it. The provision gives far too much power to the Secretary of State. My hon. Friends and I have said about many aspects of the Bill that the Secretary of State is arrogating to himself far too many draconian powers. The provision is constitutionally dangerous, and it is terribly dangerous for the Secretary of State to have the discretion to say, ''I might tell Parliament about it if I choose to, but I might not.'' The Under-Secretary will have to work quite hard to convince my hon. Friends and me that the limitation is needed. 
 The amendment's reference to subsection 5(a) and (b) was purely probing, and enabled me to raise the issue. It is the condition in sub-paragraph (b) and the words 
''if and to the extent that he''—
 that is, the Secretary of State— 
''considers it appropriate to do so''
 to which we object. I shall listen with interest to whether the Minister can justify the restriction on what the Secretary of State must do.

Bob Ainsworth: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will do that, because if he does, I am hopeful that I will be
 able to convince him that his amendment is inappropriate. However, his motivation, which is to ensure that there is openness, is right. That is the founding principle of the system that we are seeking to establish.
 The amendment would require the Secretary of State to lay before Parliament, and cause to be published, every report that he receives from the IPCC. It must be remembered that reports will be made to the Secretary of State because he has asked for them, or because the commission feels it is necessary to bring something to his attention. 
 That is not the only avenue for the commission to make its reports. If it feels that information should be made public, or made available to the police service, it can do that through the annual report, or through its ability to give advice directly to the police service and other interested persons under the provisions of subsections (10) and (11). Therefore, it will not be possible for this—or any future—Home Secretary to prevent the publication of information that the commission wishes to be made known to a wider audience than the Secretary of State. 
 It would potentially be harmful to the public interest if the Bill were to demand that reports to the Secretary of State be published. It is highly likely that this amendment would result in the commission not writing any reports for the Secretary of State, or in useful information being excluded because it was felt that it might be harmful if it were made public. The Secretary of State should have discretion with regard to whether to publish these reports, having considered all the relevant factors. 
 The Secretary of State will be aware that the system is based on openness, and that to fulfil the spirit of the system it will be appropriate to make the reports available to the public in as many cases as possible. Nevertheless, there may be times when it is not right for these reports to be disclosed. 
 The hon. Gentleman is worried about an abuse of power by the Secretary of State, and he wants to ensure that everything is open. However, when the commission has the ability to put anything it likes into the public domain through a variety of mechanisms, in some circumstances the effect of the amendment would be to prevent—or at least to discourage—not the Secretary of State from doing anything, but the IPCC itself. There might be circumstances in which it wanted to make a report to the Secretary of State, and it would feel more comfortable doing that if it knew that he had discretion with regard to what should be put into the public domain. If it wants to make an open report, it is free to do so. No Home Secretary will able to stop it doing that. 
 Therefore, although the hon. Gentleman's intention is to be open—his desire is to ensure that the Home Secretary does not have any powers that he should not have—I fear that the effect of his amendment will be to restrict not the Home Secretary, but the IPCC. He said that he would listen to what I had to say. Therefore, I ask him to take on board my comments—to accept 
 that the Secretary of State has no power to prevent the IPCC from putting whatever it wants into the public domain—and to withdraw his amendment. That would allow the IPCC, where it believes it to be appropriate, to make reports to the Secretary of State, without the inevitable consequence that each and every part of that report has to be put into the public domain.

Nick Hawkins: I have listened carefully to what the Under-Secretary has said, and I understand his point that there might be exceptional reasons why a certain category of report might not need to be published. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I may not have chosen the perfect approach, but I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for at least accepting that the spirit of our intentions is worthy and for understanding the philosophy behind them. My worry was more broadly concerned with parliamentary scrutiny than the whole matter going before a wider public. I freely concede that the words
''and cause the report to be published''
 would place every report in the public domain. 
 Does the Under-Secretary accept that my suggestion that parliamentary scrutiny could be dealt with differently? A different exception could be added at the end of subsection (5), saying: 
''and caused the report to be published (except in circumstances where the commission and the Home Secretary both felt that there was an exceptional public interest reason for it not to be in the public domain).''
 Alternatively, will the Government consider tabling an amendment, under which the Home Affairs Committee can see every report? We want to ensure that an issue that is sufficiently important for the IPCC to report it to the Home Secretary is subject to parliamentary scrutiny. A form of wording may enable that to happen without all reports having to enter a wide public domain. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will consider that. He knows where we are coming from. There is no division in the Committee about the need for openness.

Bob Ainsworth: I do not want to give the hon. Gentleman a commitment that I shall make changes. I try to be reasonable and consider all proposals that are put to me. I hope he accepts that, given our previous exchanges in other Committees. I am sure that he accepts my point that the amendment would trammel the IPCC and not the Home Secretary. I am not saying that I shall not consider the hon. Gentleman's argument, but I do not want to give the impression that I want to move away from allowing the IPCC to give reports to the Home Secretary with the comfort of knowing that, when it is not appropriate, they will not go further than him.

Nick Hawkins: I accept from all my dealings with the Under-Secretary that he is reasonable and thinks constructively about such matters. I am grateful to him for his intervention. It gives me the comfort of knowing that he will give further thought to the issue. My hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and I accept that there could be
 better ways in which to deal with the problem to take account of our worries and the risks that may arise from the wording of the amendment. In those circumstances, I am happy to beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 10 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 11 - Complaints, matters and persons

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 86, in page 12, line 34, at end insert
'; or 
 (d) he is an accredited person for the purposes of section 37'.
 This morning, the Under-Secretary said that he was pleased that I was not about to pursue the complaints procedure because it went beyond his brief. I do not know whether he was hoping that the Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety would be here by now, but we have now reached the point at which I wish to pursue the matter. 
 The purpose of the amendment is to bring people who are serving within an accredited community safety scheme within the remit of the IPCC. That is a straightforward objective and there is no getting away from it. Assuming that new clause 9 is included in the Bill, and on the basis of what the Under-Secretary said about the complaints procedure for contracted-out staff, if there is a complaint against a police officer, clearly, it would go to the IPCC, as would a complaint against a civilian support officer. Complaints against contracted-out escort or detention officers would also be—to use the Under-Secretary's words—within the remit of the IPCC. 
 However, if there is a complaint against an individual employed within an accredited community safety scheme, frankly, the complaint procedures are extremely vague. We have not yet reached clause 34 and schedule 5 which bring those officials into being. The chief officer simply has to be persuaded that the employer—whether a local authority or anyone else—has a satisfactory complaints procedure. That means that the complaint would be heard only by that employer, so there would be no level of independence. Clearly, the complaint would not be anything like as rigorously investigated or resolved, as would be the case if it were referred to the IPCC. 
 With your forbearance, Miss Widdecombe, I will refer to later clauses and schedules because they specifically relate to the amendment. Schedule 5, sets out the proposed 
''powers exercisable by accredited persons''.
 I am the first to accept that those powers are not as wide as those being given to community support officers. I am pleased that the Government agreed with the view expressed in the other place and by both Opposition parties that accredited persons should not have powers of detention, and that the Government decided not to reintroduce that measure for members of accredited schemes. 
 Nevertheless, significant police powers are granted within schedule 5, all of which will also be held by community safety officers. A contradictory situation could arise whereby, in the same borough, town or village, a community support officer could be employed by a police authority, be wearing the appropriate uniform, and do something that gives rise to a complaint. A member of the public knows that any complaint would ultimately go to the IPCC. 
 In the next street, however, an official within an accredited community safety scheme, who is also attired in an official uniform and using identical powers—confiscation of alcohol, for example—may also do something that gives rise to a complaint. If a member of the public wishes to complain, they have only the assurance that the complaint will be investigated by the employer. That is an inconsistency within the Bill, and extremely confusing to the public. The same power misused by one person is investigated by an independent commission, but misused by another person, it is investigated simply by that person's employer. 
 The situation becomes even murkier when we take into account this morning's amendments. As I understand it, the contracted-out staff may be employed by organisations such as Group 4 or Securicor—I readily accept that there could be others. From studies and visits we also know that accredited community safety schemes may involve the same organisations. I know that on that aspect there is a difference of opinion between Conservatives and Liberal Democrats. That debate will take place at a later date. However, under the Bill is drafted, accredited community safety schemes could be run by employers such as Securicor or Group 4. We could face circumstances in which some members of staff of Securicor who are contracted out could ultimately have misconduct reported to the IPCC, whereas other members of staff employed by the same employer using police powers granted under schedule 5 would have allegations of misconduct investigated only by Securicor or Group 4, or whoever is involved.

Norman Baker: Even worse, it could be the same member of staff, who is transferred within the organisation on different tasks and on one day is under the IPCC and on another is under his employer.

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman is right. It makes matters even murkier that the same member of staff could be involved.
 The amendment is intended to encourage the Minister to consider consistency and transparency. First, there should be consistency in the accountability for the use of police powers. If people with police powers are accused of misconduct in using them, ultimately they should all be investigated by the same authority with the same rigour and independence. 
 Secondly, on transparency, such people are there to serve, as are we. The public must understand the line of accountability and consideration of complaints. We cannot expect members of the public to understand all the ins and outs of the different members of the police family. The ordinary person in the street, if such a person exists, will know that there is someone in a 
 uniform acting in some way as a policeman. They will probably know that that person is not a proper policeman, but we cannot expect them to know that the powers that such people have depend on who employs them, and to whom to complain. The public need transparency and should know when someone in uniform is using police powers, exactly whom to complain to and that that complaint will be considered in the same way regardless of who the person may be—it could, as the hon. Gentleman says, even be the same official. 
 There are two fundamental reasons—one of which relates to consistency, the other to transparency—why it is essential for people who use police powers and serve in an accredited community safety scheme to be brought within the remit of the independent commission. The Under-Secretary may say, as he said this morning in answer to challenges from Opposition Members, that it is not possible to specify that in the Bill, as we have in the amendment, because of different employment law, for example. If that were the reason, I would happily accept that I might be technically wrong. However, I hope that he will not try to dismiss the issue on that technicality. A huge distinction is involved. He is taking powers in new clause 9 to issue regulations to deal with the anomaly—to repeat his words, regulations to bring contracted-out staff within the remit of the independent commission. There seems no reason why the Secretary of State could not issue regulations to bring accredited community safety officials within the IPCC's remit. 
 I do not want us to get too bogged down in the precise wording of the amendment. The issue is whether such people should fall within the independent commission's remit. I believe that they should, and the Government will be hard pushed to persuade me otherwise.

Bob Ainsworth: The last thing that I would try to do is slide out from under the argument on the basis of a technicality. The issue has been around for some time and was debated at some length in the other place, so it is not new, and was already on the table.
 Clearly, there must be a robust mechanism for redress if a member of the public wants to make a complaint against an accredited person, and the public will want to be satisfied that the organisation's complaint system is satisfactory. That will be secured through the arrangements under clause 36(6), which places a duty on the chief officer responsible for accreditation to ensure that the employers of those people 
''have established and maintain satisfactory arrangements for handling complaints''
 made against them. If those arrangements are not applied satisfactorily, clause 38(3) allows the chief officer to withdraw the accreditation. Clause 38(6) is also relevant. It makes the accredited person and their employer jointly liable for unlawful conduct. 
 It is worth noting that local authorities already have their own complaint systems for people that they employ as neighbourhood, street and dog wardens, park keepers and environmental health officers. Such people have been exercising similar powers to those of accredited community support officers for many years. To my knowledge, no one has suggested—although I may well be wrong because all kinds of suggestions are made in the House—that that category of person should be brought within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority. No one is suggesting that complaints against such persons should fall to the IPCC. 
 As my noble Friend Lord Rooker explained in another place, if it is inappropriate to use the new IPCC for existing local authority employees, it is surely equally inappropriate to bring accredited community support officers within the commission's jurisdiction. Far from stopping or minimising confusion, the hon. Gentleman's proposal is likely to cause even more. Accredited persons will not be able to use reasonable force; indeed, as he says, we have now accepted that they should not have the power to detain. They are therefore not on a par with community support officers, who will be subject to the new complaints system. They will have limited powers to deal with public nuisance including litter, dog fouling and environmental concerns such as abandoned cars. 
 Accredited persons fulfil a complementary role to that of the police and community support officers, and will not be thought of by members of the public as part of the police service; we are trying to guard against that.

Norman Baker: That is important, and it is why I raised the issue of the powers given to accredited persons on Second Reading. Would not the Under-Secretary accept that to give those officials powers such as those of confiscation of alcohol, tobacco and so on could bring them into conflict with members of the public, and that that is a different matter to an environmental health officer going into a restaurant and saying whether it is fit for opening?

Bob Ainsworth: Other local authority officers might come into such conflict and have powers to deal with various sections of the community. It has never been suggested that those officers should be brought within the remit of the IPCC, and it is our contention that accredited persons should not, either. It would be burdensome, and counter to the point of these proposals, if the police and the commission were involved in complaints against such accredited people. It would divert police and commission resources away from handling complaints against officers and police authority support staff, which should be the core business of the commission.

Nick Hawkins: I have concerns, despite the Under-Secretary's protestations that these people will not be seen as police. At the first appearance of the proposed community support officers alongside the Met, their uniforms were almost indistinguishable, and the media expressed concern and surprise that the commissioner, Sir John Stevens, had not seen the new uniforms before that great launch. Ministers—including the
 Minister for Policing, Crime Reduction and Community Safety, who is not present—have frequently talked about the police family including the community support officers. I do not think that it will be like that. If their uniform is very similar to that of the police, they may be brought into situations of conflict, as my hon. Friend the Member for South-East Cambridgeshire and the hon. Member for Lewes have said. If that is what happens, they should come within the remit of the IPCC.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman should not pray in aid half a story. He ought, at least, also to say what the commissioner did on that occasion, and the changes that he sought to make because of the potential for confusion.
 Accredited persons will be accountable to their employers: they will need a disciplinary code and a satisfactory mechanism for dealing with complaints to enable them to gain or keep their status of accreditation and fulfil their role within the remit of the local chief officer, who has the power to remove that accreditation. 
 The chief officer has a duty to ensure that a satisfactory mechanism of that kind is established and maintained. If there is an allegation that an accredited person has committed a crime, the police will be able to investigate the matter in the normal way. If an allegation of misconduct is made that breaches the relevant employers' stated disciplinary code, the chief officer will be able to insist that appropriate action is taken, otherwise the accreditation can be removed.

James Paice: I ask the Under-Secretary to consider whether his argument is consistent. Why was it necessary this morning—rightly in my view—to give the Secretary of State powers to make regulations for contracted-out staff to come within the remit of the IPCC, when it is not necessary with regard to the matter now under discussion? In both cases, we are talking about people employed by third parties outside the police force. In both cases, he could have said that the employers must have their own complaints system and all the subsequent back up, but in one case he has chosen the IPCC, and in the other he has not. Where is the consistency in that?

Bob Ainsworth: I do not believe that there is any inconsistency whatsoever. This morning, we were talking about contracted-out personnel who would be working within a police station environment, and performing a role that is carried out by police officers under the direct control of the local police force and, as I said, if the appropriate standards are to be maintained and if the interests of clarity and the public are to be met, such people should come under the same regulation.
 We are now talking about accredited persons who will operate under a very different environment, who will be identified in a different way, and who will have a different employer. Therefore, we are talking about two very different circumstances. 
 I see no inconsistency in what I am saying. If we consider the other people who are employed by such organisations—which are, in the main, local authorities, which have various types of powers—
 there is potential for confusion. The size of the burden would be a considerable problem that would take the commission and the complaints system away from what we all want: an independent complaints system for police officers and those who work in police areas carrying out duties otherwise performed by police officers. The amendment would have a detrimental effect. The arrangement should be retained as proposed and the responsibility should remain with the employer.

Norman Baker: The Under-Secretary is not very convincing on that point—I hope that he does not mind me saying that. There is inconsistency and if the Under-Secretary cannot see that, there is something wrong with his logic. There is inconsistency if one part of the police family is subject to the IPCC and another part is not. There is inconsistency if some people who work for Group 4 are subject to the IPCC but others are not. There is inconsistency if a person who works one day at a police station is subject to one formula but a person who works on another day is not. There are inconsistencies all over the place.
 The Under-Secretary has failed to grasp that the amendment is an attempt to regularise and bring coherence to the disparate groupings of people in the wide police family. That is set out in the Bill although it is somewhat complicated in itself as an attempt to bring order. The Under-Secretary's insistence on different arrangements is perpetrating that disorder rather than providing coherence. 
 The suggestion that the situation is comparable to that of local authority employees does not wash. It might wash if the Under-Secretary noted the comments of his colleague the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, the hon. Member for North Warwickshire (Mr. O'Brien), who has been reinstated in ministerial office. On Second Reading, he said that if all CSOs and officials are given powers, they must be treated in the same ways as police for training, complaints and similar matters. If they remain as street wardens with local authority powers, that is an entirely different matter. If they are at that level, they will not come into conflict with local people in the way in which they will if they are given the powers in the Bill. I hope that you do not mind me referring to the powers, Miss Widdecombe, because they are relevant to our discussion. 
 If street wardens do not have powers, evidence shows that they are seen as part of the community. They are welcomed and considered to be the person living next door who is doing a job for the public good. If those people, who do not receive proper training in the way in which police officers do, are given powers, that might bring them into conflict with volatile members of the public such as youths who have been drinking alcohol or who have tobacco that they do not want confiscated. Such youths will not welcome a person who they consider to be an elevated park keeper coming along in a mock-up uniform to tell them that they must hand over their tobacco or alcohol. There is a considerable possibility of conflict in that situation. Additionally, the good will that would be present for a person without the powers will evaporate.

Patrick Mercer: Is not the point that there will be confusion in the exact circumstances that the hon. Gentleman described? Whatever the mock-up uniform, the difficulty of the circumstances or the clarity—in theory—of the delineation, by the time that such people get on the ground, youths who have their tobacco or alcohol taken away will object strenuously. Those people will need powers in order to be complained against.

Ann Widdecombe: Order. Before the hon. Member for Lewes responds, may I draw the Committee's attention to the scope of the amendment? I suggest that the hon. Gentleman addresses his remarks to that.

Norman Baker: I have three objections to the Under-Secretary's comments, which are the reasons why I support the amendment. I have referred to my first and second objections, which are inconsistency and potential conflict. My third objection relates to confusion. We need to bring order to the wide and disparate family. We will not be able to do that if there are different systems for various people, and the position is not widely understood.
 Surely the Under-Secretary sees the logic of my argument. I hope that he thinks about the matter as he did this morning, and accepts that, because Group 4 or Securicor employees at police stations are fulfilling a quasi-police role, they should be subject to the IPCC, as should others who are fulfilling a quasi-police role. If the hon. Gentleman does not accept that, the consequences will be that, if complaints are made about such people, Group 4 or Securicor will not have the same determination to deal with these matters because they involve their employees. The IPCC is independent and will consider such matters dispassionately. If a complaint is made against an employee of a private sector company and the employer concludes that the employee has behaved inappropriately, the employer will consider how to deal with that and try to ensure that no opprobrium is heaped on the organisation that would bring it into disrepute. That should not be possible.

Bob Ainsworth: Whether Group 4, for example, was the employer of two different people in different situations is neither here nor there. That is the point. There would be different contracts, exercising different powers in different circumstances. As for those to whom we referred this morning, there would be a real danger of the public becoming confused, because such people would be working in close proximity with the police, often in a police station environment, and under the direction of a senior officer. It is right that they should be covered by the same conditions.
 Accredited people will not necessarily be working closely with the police. They will be out in the community and identified as people who are different from police officers.

Norman Baker: The Under-Secretary has missed the point. More complaints will be levelled against community support officials on the street because they are in regular contact with the public than against those who are employed in police stations, who will be subject to disciplinary procedures within the police
 station. If anything, the complaints procedure should be better—not worse—for such people.
 If a private sector employer receives a complaint about one of its employees, when it considers how to deal with the complaint—notwithstanding any protocol or agreement that may have been signed with the chief constable of the area—the employer will assess the consequences for the organisation. That factor should not be taken into account, but it will be. For those reasons, it is appropriate that such officials should be subject to the IPCC. I have not heard any arguments from the Under-Secretary that have convinced me to the contrary.

Ian Lucas: There has been some confusion in the debate. I hope that I am not the only one who is confused. We are not talking about community support officers. That ct is understood by some Opposition Members, but the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred specifically to community support officers. The important aspect is the nature of the powers of the individual, and that should determine whether he falls within the remit of the IPCC rather than that of his employer.
 The powers that we discussed this morning when talking about Group 4 employees relate to detention and escort under clause 35(2)(c) and (d). Those powers are exercised by support officers. If private contractor employees exercise those powers, it is appropriate for them to fall within the remit of complaints to the IPCC. 
 We are now discussing people who are employed under community safety accreditation schemes. They are entirely different animals and do not have the powers of community support officers. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says, such people will have similar powers to those currently exercised by warden-type people. For example, they might have similar powers to environmental health officers, who I believe are entitled to seize evidence in particular cases, and no doubt will seize evidence from people who do want to give it to them. People already operate effectively under that remit. The rationale for retaining such people in the current structure is that they already operate effectively. That is why they fall outside the IPCC umbrella. 
 I understand the Opposition's point about consistency. However, their argument has lacked clarity. Some of them have been referring to community support officers when in fact we have been discussing people involved in community safety accreditation schemes. [Interruption.] Certainly—I made a note—the hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to community support officers in his intervention.

Norman Baker: I am not sure that any Member did that, but if a Member did confuse community support officers with accredited persons, does that not show that even among a group of people who have spent a great deal of time studying the Bill there is confusion? Does that not underline the case for clearing up the confusion in the Bill?

Ian Lucas: It is not necessary to consider the description of the person involved. The important
 point is the power that that person exercises. The powers that we discussed this morning are those of detention and escort. Those powers will be exercised by the community support officer, who will be employed by the police authority. They will also be exercised by people employed by third-party contractors. That is why they fall within the remit of the IPCC. If something does not need fixing, why change the current system? Environmental health officers exercise similar powers effectively and have not fallen within the remit of the Police Complaints Authority before. There is no reason to change that.

Annette Brooke: I accept the hon. Gentleman's points about local authorities, but later we shall discuss accreditation by bodies other than local authorities. Will he have the same confidence in the complaints system of Tesco, for example, or other bodies that might accredit officers?

Ian Lucas: I shall continue to focus on the important issue—the extent and nature of the individual's power.

James Paice: Like the hon. Member for Lewes, I have heard nothing to counter the strength of the argument that he, I and my hon. Friends have advanced. The hon. Member for Wrexham (Ian Lucas) rightly referred to the nature of the powers, which are, however, slightly different from his interpretation. He refers to environmental health officers, but as far as I know no environmental health officer or other local government official can go up to a group of youths drinking in the street and confiscate their alcohol. That is one of the powers that is proposed to be given to accredited community safety officials.

Bob Ainsworth: Park wardens have a statutory duty to confiscate tobacco from under-age children. For the sake of consistency, if that is the hon. Gentleman's argument, is he suggesting that park wardens should come under the police complaints arrangements?

James Paice: I am not aware of any park warden who has confiscated tobacco from somebody under age—not even in the days when it was me. The Under-Secretary's point is somewhat far fetched.
 I want to take the matter a little more seriously. Let us consider the powers of escort officers. The Under-Secretary said that we were discussing people who are working closely with the police and in police stations. An escort officer will not do that. Most of the time an escort officer will be working with only the individual who is being escorted. An escort officer's powers are extremely limited. There are just two powers: the power to take an arrested person to a police station and the power to escort persons in police detention. However, a member of an accredited community safety scheme has six powers, which include the confiscation of alcohol and tobacco. Of course, that confiscation is not only from people who are under age, but from people of all ages. There is a clear distinction, but we are putting escort officers with limited powers under the remit of the IPCC but not accredited community safety officials. As the hon. Member for Lewes said, we are telling the employer simply that it must have its own complaints system.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate that such an accredited organisation would work very closely with the local police force? That has been established with Covent Garden street trader wardens and Leicester square wardens. Additionally, the ultimate sanction is to remove the accreditation. There will be a close working relationship with the police and, ultimately, the powers could be taken away. What further assurance does the hon. Gentleman want?

James Paice: The hon. Gentleman has made the point that I was going to make, although he has used a reverse emphasis. The Under-Secretary said that accredited safety officers will not work so closely with the police but escort and detention officers will work closely with the police. There is a split in the Government ranks.
 The Under-Secretary referred to clause 37(3) and clause 38(6). Yes, of course they allow the chief officer to withdraw accreditation. Equally, the chief officer could withdraw a contract that applies to the people who we discussed this morning. My point is about inconsistency. In one case it is—rightly—necessary to involve the IPCC, despite the fact that the chief officer could withdraw the contract, but in another case it is not.

Huw Irranca-Davies: Although I have limited experience of the matter, I was fortunate enough to spend an evening three or four weeks ago in Leicester square to see the way in which the warden system works hand in hand with the police. The police are not directly involved with the system, but the interrelation between the police and wardens is fundamental. The police have a vested interest in making the system work effectively. It might surprise the hon. Gentleman that the wardens look forward to an increase in their powers from the Bill because they currently feel restricted. Although the relationship between the two groups is not formal, it is very close.

James Paice: I have visited many similar schemes, although not that specific one, and I share the hon. Gentleman's recognition of their value. I must admit that I have yet to meet a warden who wanted the powers because most of them told me that they would be a disadvantage. The question of whether wardens should have the powers is a separate issue. However, the question is that if they have the powers in schedule 5, to whom should complaints be made and who should investigate them. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that they will often work closely with the police. However, that does not negate the point that if they use the police powers that they will be given if schedule 5 is approved, the complaint of misconduct resulting from the use of those powers should ultimately, having been through a sifting mechanism, go to the IPCC.

Bob Ainsworth: In justifying the decision that I made this morning, I said that the people whom we are talking about will be working within a police environment under the direct control of the police, and will be doing work that the police have traditionally done. The hon. Gentleman seeks to
 ridicule that by saying, ''Well, that does not apply to escort officers,'' but escort officers will often be, if not within the confines of a police station, then in a police vehicle escorting someone in police custody. That is quite different from accredited persons, who will be working for another organisation out in the community.

James Paice: But they will still be working under a policing umbrella because the chief officer will have approved the scheme. The Under-Secretary says that accredited persons will not be doing things that were formerly done by the police, such as escort duties. However, until now, the confiscation of alcohol in the street, to take an example—we keep using the same one, but there are others—was done only by the police. Under schedule 5, accredited officers will take on, in some aspect, the role of police officers, so the channel of complaint for misconduct should be the same as that for police officers.
 I suspect that the Under-Secretary is not prepared to budge on the issue, but I believe that my argument was well-made, although I say so myself. I have heard nothing to counter it, so I beg to press the amendment to a Division. 
 Question put, That the amendment be made:—
The Committee divided: Ayes 8, Noes 10.

Question accordingly negatived. 
 Clause 11 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clause 12 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Schedule 3 - Handling of Complaints and - Conduct Matters etc.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 5, in page 102, line 43, after 'injury', insert
'or involves corruption or racial discrimination'.
 I start by saying that this is a probing amendment, which I understand is the formulation that one uses if one wishes to have it accepted into law. The amendment relates to the reference of complaints to the commission. Paragraph 4 gives the conditions that determine when it is mandatory for a complaint to be referred to the commission, namely when the conduct alleged to have taken place has resulted in death or serious injury. The amendment seeks to extend that to include corruption or racial discrimination, notwithstanding that there is the option for such 
 matters to be referred on, should they be deemed sufficiently important—that is especially the case with regard to paragraph 4(2). 
 I turn to the reasons why corruption and racial discrimination have been singled out. Corruption is a very serious offence, and it can involve corruption within the police itself, in which case it is essential that it be dealt with by an independent body, rather than by the police. With regard to racial discrimination, as the Under-Secretary will be aware, in the past 10 or 20 years, relations between ethnic minorities and the police have not always been as strong as they might have been. Although welcome steps have been taken to try to improve matters, relations between them are still unsatisfactory. As the Under-Secretary will know, the targets that have been set for the recruitment of police officers from ethnic minorities have been woefully under-met. That suggests that, sadly, there is still a perception problem with regard to the police and ethnic minorities. 
 In recent years, many serious complaints have been made on the grounds of racial discrimination, or failure to take action on allegations of racial discrimination, and if what I have suggested were expressed in legislation, that would give a welcome assurance to the sections of our community that feel alienated from the police. 
 The Under-Secretary might reply by saying that it is possible to pick out other crimes that are equally serious, and which have not been included in that list, and that if one wanted to make the list exhaustive, it would be very long indeed. I understand that point, but I ask him to put on the record his recognition that corruption and allegations of racial discrimination are serious matters, and that, in many cases, they would merit being forwarded to the commission.

Bob Ainsworth: Amendment No. 5 would have the effect of placing a duty on the police to refer a complaint to the commission, if the conduct that is complained about involves corruption or racial discrimination.
 Under paragraph 4, the police must refer a complaint to the commission if the conduct that is complained about resulted in death or serious injury or falls into a category specified in regulations, or if it is called in by the commission. 
 The categories specified in the regulations will include serious corruption and serious racist conduct, as well as shooting incidents in which an officer discharges a firearm in the course of an operation, miscarriages of justice that allegedly result from misconduct, and serious arrestable offences. 
 The regulations will have the full force of the legislative requirements. However, it is useful for the Secretary of State to be able, from time to time, to amend the categories for which it would be appropriate to have that automatic referral. Nevertheless, complaints about alleged misconduct that lead to death or serious injury will always have to be referred to the commission. 
 Given my assurance that the regulations will cover serious corruption and racist conduct, I ask the hon. 
 Gentleman to accept that the amendment is unnecessary.

Nick Hawkins: I wanted to hear the Under-Secretary's response to the hon. Member for Lewes before intervening. It is no surprise that he anticipates such issues being covered in regulations that we have yet to see, and it would help members of the Committee to see a draft of the sort of regulations that the Secretary of State has in mind. If the Under-Secreary is as positive as that, there must be some sort of schematic presentation of such regulations somewhere in the Home Office, and it would help to see it without holding the Under-Secretary and his colleagues to every dot and comma. The Under-Secretary always tries to be helpful to Committees of which he is in charge, and it would help if he could disseminate that information.

Bob Ainsworth: I cannot give a clear commitment, as I do not know how far we are down the road that the hon. Gentleman suggests. I will let him know when we have something that we can put in front of him.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's characteristically helpful response. It would be good if he could circulate something, even if it is an early draft. However, I have one concern in relation to the general issue that the hon. Member for Lewes raised. When the Under-Secretary talked about what will be in the regulations, he introduced the qualification ''serious'' when he talked about ''corruption or racial discrimination'', which are not qualified in amendment No. 5 tabled by the hon. Member for Lewes. That may go some way to addressing another of my concerns. It is well known to all of us who have been involved in legal matters that if career criminals want to muddy the waters after their arrest, one of the easiest things for a serious gangster to allege is that the police are corrupt. That is commonplace. There should be some way of determining whether the commission should consider an allegation of corruption, or whether it is merely an attempt to muddy the waters.
 As the hon. Member for Lewes rightly says, we are all aware of the sensitivity of issues relating to racial discrimination. Before entering the House, one of my jobs as a corporate lawyer involved representing a large national company. From time to time, as happens with large companies, members of staff made entirely spurious allegations of racial discrimination against it, because they thought that by doing so they could get in on what I call the compensation culture and make a large sum of money. I represented the company when a member of staff alleged that a regional manager was guilty of racial discrimination. Unbeknown to the person making this entirely spurious claim, it turned out that that the manager's parents had been refugees from the holocaust. Because of his family background, he was the last person in the world who would be guilty of racial discrimination. When I, and others, cross-examined the person making the spurious complaint in front of an industrial tribunal, it also turned out that one of her allegations in support of her claim was that the area manager had said to a chap in reception who happened to be from an ethnic minority, ''Oh, 
 you look like Neil Diamond.'' That was purely a reference to the dress that he was wearing. Neil Diamond was white, which completely undermined the basis of the complaint. It had been intended as a compliment—not racial discrimination—about his style of dress. Spurious complaints can be made as part of compensation culture. Cautious words, which the Under-Secretary suggests will appear in the regulations, are necessary about allegations of serious discrimination.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about racial discrimination, but I referred to racist conduct. The two are different: it is possible to behave in a racist way without necessarily discriminating against people. I am not sure whether we can go further, but I remind the hon. Gentleman that paragraph 27 of the White Paper provided a list of the issues that might fall into that category.

Nick Hawkins: I am grateful, but a list in the White Paper might be different from the regulations that the Secretary of State makes. I am asking for a draft of what the final regulations might contain. Time has moved on since the White Paper. I used the words ''racial discrimination'' because the hon. Member for Lewes employed the term in his amendment. I accept that the Under-Secretary used different words when he spoke about the proposed regulations.
 It is important to maintain a sense of balance. When members of the Committee see a draft of the regulations, we will have a better idea. On balance, there is little difference between the spirit and the intention of what the two Opposition parties want to achieve. We have to be aware that some people throw about allegations that could be intended to clog up the workings of the IPCC. We do not want its creation to lead to a vast explosion of the compensation culture. I am sure that the hon. Member for Lewes will understand why I say that.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his tour de force around ''Neil Diamond land''.
 I understand the hon. Gentleman's point about corruption allegations. When someone makes an allegation and a case is live, I am unsure whether it is better to leave it to one side until the case is settled, whether the police should settle it, or whether it should clog up the IPCC, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. However, that is not part of the amendment that I tabled. It is a probing amendment and I am grateful for the Under-Secretary's assurance that the issues that I raised will feature in the regulations. It would be helpful to see a draft set of regulations, but given the Under-Secretary's assurances, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment. 
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 139, in page 103, line 3, at end insert
'or— 
 (d) the complainant makes a written representation to the appropriate authority stating the grounds on which he or she is dissatisfied with the handling of the complaint and requesting that the matter be referred to the Commission.'.
 The amendment relates to a matter that I raised on Second Reading, as reported in column 57 on 7 May 2002. My concern is that the IPCC may indeed become clogged up with allegations, some of which may be justified. I understand that only a small secretariat is proposed and that only about 3 per cent. of complaints would be dealt with directly by the IPCC, the rest being subject to settlement at a lower level. 
 Nothing is wrong with that. There is no reason why the IPCC should see every single complaint and deal with it directly itself. It may be satisfactory to ask for a complaint to be dealt with informally and deal only with the more serious matters. However, an explicit right should be given to a complainant who is not satisfied with how the complaint has been dealt with by the body about which the complaint was made to have an independent examination of that complaint. 
 I draw a parallel, as I did on Second Reading, with a local council. When someone complains about a local council he will perhaps deal first with the officer who has dealt with the matter or with a councillor. The matter may then go to the chief executive or through to a council's complaints panel. At that stage, if the complainant remains unhappy—this happens in a minority of cases—the complainant can take the matter to the local government ombudsman, which is an independent body that will look at that. 
 Unless the Under-Secretary corrects me, I see no explicit provision within the Bill that says that a person will have the right to refer the matter on to the IPCC if he is not satisfied with the way that the complaint has been dealt with informally. When I raised that matter on Second Reading, the Minister of State said: 
''an individual who is dissatisfied by the action taken in a substantial number of cases that would usually be resolved at force level, as at present, will be able to complain to the commission about the handling of his case.'' [Interruption.]

Ann Widdecombe: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman. It is extremely difficult for the Chairman and Hansard staff to concentrate on what is being said if a continuous and audible conversation is taking place.

Norman Baker: Thank you, Miss Widdecombe. I am sure that the hon. Members to my right were discussing the importance of the amendment. The Minister continued:
''That facility is not available at the moment. Clearly, the commission's staff will carry out the investigation in only a minority of cases and the IPCC will directly manage, as opposed to supervising, a further minority of those investigations.''—[Official Report, 7 May 2002; Vol. 385, c. 57.]
 I have no problem with that system. It is fine. Of course the IPCC cannot get involved in every nut and bolt, but an escape mechanism is needed for when a complainant feels that a complaint has not been dealt with properly. It should then be dealt with directly by the IPCC. My amendment achieves that and is also in line with the response given to me by the Minister of State on Second Reading when he recognised the importance of that independent process. I hope that the Under-Secretary will have sympathy with the 
 amendment and will recognise the importance of a complainant having the right to go directly to the IPCC and have the complaint investigated by that body if he or she is dissatisfied with the way that it has been dealt with further down the process.

Nick Hawkins: I shall be fairly brief. I want to reassure the hon. Member for Lewes and apologise to you, Miss Widdecombe. I was involved in discussions with my hon. Friend the Member for Henley (Mr. Johnson), but we were trying to address the issue that the hon. Gentleman raises. If the complainant simply has to write a note to put the whole matter into the hands of the IPCC, it may achieve the exact opposite of his objective. The commission may have only a small secretariat. Once again I express my concern that the whole thing might be clogged up. As constituency Members we are all sadly familiar with the fact that a relatively small proportion of the population are professional complainers. They are never satisfied with anything. They always want to push any complaint to the nth degree. If that small category of people only had to do write a note to have the matter dealt with by the IPCC rather than a police authority, it would seriously clog up the commission's work, perhaps with the least serious of the complaints.

Norman Baker: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the intention of the amendment. Complainants would go through the normal process. They would make a complaint. It would be deemed appropriate to be investigated by the police force itself or whatever. Only if a complainant were unhappy after that would he be able to ask for that direct intervention and consideration by the IPCC, just as someone who had gone through the usual local council complaints procedure could complain to the ombudsman.

Nick Hawkins: If the objective is to have that exhaustive procedure before the right to write a letter can come into force, I am not sure whether that is achieved by the amendment. We will hear from the Under-Secretary about that in a moment. Even in those circumstances, does the hon. Gentleman not think from all his experiences as a constituency Member that certain people will never be satisfied? I am sure we are all familiar with the situation where people will simply not take no for an answer. I am concerned about that, even if it occurs after an exhaustive process. If the proposal of the hon. Member for Lewes were accepted, we would need a fail-safe mechanism to rule out vexatious and spurious complaints and to ensure that the time of the IPCC was not wasted. There is also the compensation culture issue, whereby people may think that they could get money by taking something to the IPCC.
 I will listen to what the Under-Secretary says. There are concerns about the proposal, although I understand its spirit and do not want to undermine its worthy motive.

Bob Ainsworth: Let me say a word about the comment of the hon. Member for Lewes, which he has made before, on the percentage of cases that the IPCC will deal with; I have heard it said repeatedly that it will deal with only 3 per cent. We are trying to set up a system that will win and lift public confidence. That
 will be damaged if it gets into the public mind that the IPCC will deal with only 3 per cent. I do not believe that that figure is accurate. At the moment, about 30,000 complaints a year are made; 10,000 of them are not proceeded with and 10,000 are resolved locally without a formal complaint being made. Of the remaining 10,000, we envisage that the IPCC will deal directly with about 1,000 and manage and oversee another 1,000. There is therefore a good argument that the IPCC will effectively deal with or supervise around 20 per cent. of cases. Those numbers compare with those for the Police Complaints Authority, which dealt last year with 600 cases. I do not want the impression to get out to the public at large that the IPCC will have a minuscule input because that would undermine the objective, shared by all parties, to raise the level of confidence in how complaints are dealt with.
 Amendment No. 139 would have the effect of placing a duty on the police to refer a complaint to the commission if the complainant makes a written representation to the police saying why he or she is dissatisfied with the way in which the police are dealing with the complaint and asking for it to be referred to the commission. People could therefore jump in at any point while the complaint is being dealt with and have it referred to the commission, which would place the responsibility for deciding on the handling of the complaint with the commission rather than the police. However, if the commission decides that the complaint does not need to be investigated, it will be referred back to the police. Even if the commission decides that the complaint should be investigated it may in any case, under paragraph 15 of schedule 3, ask the police to carry out the investigation on its behalf. 
 Many complainants are likely to want the commission rather than the police to decide on the handling of complaints, especially where misconduct by an officer may undermine a complainant's confidence in the force as a whole. However, as the hon. Member for Surrey Heath said, that would place an unnecessary burden on the commission as well as removing from the police responsibility for handling and therefore also ownership of complaints. No one wants that. The Bill places a duty on the police to refer complaints to the commission if the alleged misconduct has resulted in death or serious injury and regulations will place a similar duty on the police where an allegation involves, for example, serious corruption or serious racist conduct. Moreover, the commission will be able to call in any recorded complaint and the police will be able to refer any other complaint to the commission if they consider it appropriate to do so in serious or exceptional cases. 
 Those measures together should ensure that all complaints that need to be considered by the commission are referred to it. If complainants were given the right to insist that their complaints be referred to the commission, it is likely that the commission would have to consider a large number of additional complaints—of which the vast majority, if not all, will end up being dealt with by the police anyway. A considerable amount of the commission's resources would have been used in considering a 
 complaint, without there being any difference in the way in which it was dealt with. It is even possible that complainants' expectations of the commission's ongoing involvement in their cases may be raised to unrealistic levels, and that could undermine public confidence in the system as a whole. 
 I know what the hon. Member for Lewes wants to achieve, but I do not believe that the amendment would accomplish it. If, at the end of the process, a complainant is unhappy with the way in which the complaint had been dealt with and disposed of, nothing can stop the person writing to the commission, which would deal with such correspondence. We do not want to give the impression that the commission will be dealing with complaints when it will not. We do not want to impose an unrealistic burden on it and remove ownership of the complaints system from the police. I ask the hon. Gentleman to consider the ramifications of the amendment and to withdraw it.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for replying at such length. To be fair, the amendment is not worded very well; I probably drafted it late at night. It would have a different effect from the one that I wanted. It would allow someone to refer on a complaint, which is not what I intended. When the process has been exhausted, I want people to have the right to contact the IPCC and say that they were not happy with the result, and ask the commission to reconsider it. The commission may undertake a cursory examination. It may say that it had examined the evidence and that it was satisfied that the matter was dealt with properly.
 The Under-Secretary, Conservative Members and I all want the same thing. The hon. Gentleman referred to winning public confidence in the system, and that is what I am trying to achieve. The hon. Member for Surrey Heath referred to a small minority of vexatious persons who will use the system and clog it up. I agree with him. We all repeatedly receive letters in our postbags and visits in our surgeries from the same people. At least, that happens to me. I understand that, but the difficulty is that those people, if refused the right to contact the IPCC direct at the end of the process, will then say, ''Oh, this process is useless. I believed that matters would change, but all that has happened is that the police investigated the matter. The investigation was not carried out independently. It is a stitch-up.'' I am confident that it will not be, but people will say that. 
 I was seeking a way in which people could have the last gasp and resort to the IPCC at the end of process. If people are unhappy with their dealings with the local council, they can contact the ombudsman. He may say that he is happy with the council's decision, but, in those circumstances, at least people know that such matters have been considered independently. That is what I am trying to achieve.

Bob Ainsworth: Whether or not the complaints have been dealt with locally or formally, there is nothing to stop a complainant contacting the commission. That provides an incentive to the force to deal with the
 complaint appropriately and to try its best to satisfy people. The schedule provides the back stop for which the hon. Gentleman is asking, without the need for his amendment.

Norman Baker: I am grateful to the Under-Secretary for saying that people can write to the IPCC. He did not say that it would necessarily consider such complaints. That is perhaps the missing half of the equation. Nevertheless, I accept that the amendment is badly drafted and I have been able to raise my concern. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 6, in page 111, line 36, at end insert—
'(c) the need to secure, preserve and promote public confidence in the independence of the system of dealing with complaints against police officers.'.

Ann Widdecombe: With this we may discuss amendment No. 247, in page 115, line 9, at end insert—
'(9) The Commission shall take into account the need to secure, preserve and promote public confidence in the independence of the system of dealing with complaints against police officers.'.

Norman Baker: The amendment relates to investigations and subsequent proceedings under part 3 of schedule 3. Paragraph 15(3) states:
''In making a determination—''
 on the form of an investigation— 
''under sub-paragraph (2) the Commission shall have regard to the following factors—
(a) the seriousness of the case; and
(b) the public interest.''
 The amendment would add a third criterion for consideration: 
''the need to secure, preserve and promote public confidence in the independence of the system of dealing with complaints against police officers.''
 In a way, the amendment explains the reason for setting up the IPCC. Its purpose in many ways is to promote public confidence in the independence of the system for dealing with complaints against police officers, so the amendment is bang in the middle of what the Government are seeking to achieve. I think that we should add those words to the Bill, because although a case may come before the commission that is not regarded as particularly serious in a criminal sense and in which there is not an immediately obvious public interest, it might be important to proceed in a particular way to give the public confidence in the system's independence. Amendment No. 247 is consequential on amendment No. 6.

Nick Hawkins: I shall be brief. I rather agree with the hon. Member for Lewes, and it would do no harm to add his sub-paragraph (3)(c) to the Bill. I simply wonder whether the widest possible definition of the words ''public interest'' in sub-paragraph (3)(b) might incorporate the meaning of the words in the amendment. Nevertheless, just in case it is necessary to be specific, I shall listen with interest to what the
 Minister has to say. As the hon. Member for Lewes rightly said, the purpose of setting up a truly independent body is to try to ensure the factor that he sets out in the amendment.

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Member for Lewes will be surprised to know that I agree with him, too. He talked about the ''purpose'' of the IPCC. I understand the difficulties of opposition and of trying to see where there are potential gaps in clauses, but I refer him to clause 9(1), which deals with the general functions of the commission. It states:
''The functions of the Commission shall be . . . to secure that public confidence is established and maintained in the existence of suitable arrangements with respect to those matters and with the operation of the arrangements that are in fact maintained with respect to those matters''.
 Clause 9(1)(d) deals with exactly the point that the hon. Gentleman raises, so we believe that it is covered. He is right to say that it is central to the functions of the IPCC, but it is covered in the Bill. Having pointed that out, I hope that he will withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: When the Minister began, I thought for a moment that he was going to accept the amendment, but there we are—one lives in hope. I understand what he says. My point is indeed covered earlier in the Bill, and it had also occurred to me before I tabled the amendment that it could be covered by the phrase ''public interest''. However, I thought, and still think, that it would be useful to spell the matter out at this point, because it relates specifically to the form of an investigation, rather than the general functions of the commission. Nevertheless, I shall not press the amendment to a vote. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 154, in page 115, line 40, after 'authority;' insert—
'(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the subject matter of the investigation under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.

Ann Widdecombe: With this it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 155 to 167 and Government new clause 11—Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant.

Bob Ainsworth: One of the key objectives of part 2 is to increase openness in the police complaints system by providing for the maximum disclosure of information to complainants subject to a sensitivity test. There might, however, be circumstances in which a person, for example the relative of a deceased person, does not wish to make a complaint. As the Bill stands, that person would have no entitlement to receive information about the progress of the investigation into the conduct of those whose actions allegedly led to the death of their relative.
 The Government believe that any person who has suffered serious injury or the death of a relative should automatically be treated as a complainant for the purposes of being kept informed. The amendments enable that to happen. 
 We want to extend the principle of the maximum possible openness for complainants to all people who 
 have a legitimate interest in a case. The police will have to keep specific people, such as relatives of those who have died allegedly as a result of police misconduct, informed to the same degree as complainants. The Secretary of State will set out in regulations the relatives who should have the right to be kept informed, but obviously they will be those who are closest to the deceased. 
 New clause 11 will allow the police or the IPCC to be proactive about keeping any people whom they consider to be legitimately interested informed about the investigation without such people having to make a complaint first.

James Paice: The Under-Secretary will not be surprised to hear that we are more than happy with the principle of transparent sharing of information, which the amendments and new clause will bring in. However, our discussion relates to the previous amendments because my concern is to ensure that the process of keeping people informed does not become so burdensome that it detracts from the principal purpose of achieving a proper investigation.
 I ask the Under-Secretary the people whom he envisages will be considered as relatives. As my hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath said earlier, the sad situation is that people can be awkward and take up much time by wanting to know every dot and comma of progress, and that detracts from the progress of the inquiry. We are discussing not the outcome of the inquiry, but its progress. The principal objective is to get the progress going and to maintain it rather than getting too bogged down by telling all and sundry about it. 
 I was especially worried about new clause 11(2)(b), which mentions 
''a relative of a person whose serious injury is the alleged result from that conduct and that person is incapable of making a complaint''.
 Obviously, somebody would have made a complaint because otherwise there would not be an investigation. There is a case for limiting the number of people who may ring up to ask how the inquiry is getting on. Will the Under-Secretary give us more detail about how narrow the criteria will be?

Bob Ainsworth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right, and he raised a question that I touched on. The word ''a'' rather than ''all'' is used. We intend—we shall get the wording right in the regulations—that in the overwhelming majority of cases, people who will inquire will be the main relative, who is usually the next of kin. We want to allow for circumstances, such as those due to family situations, in which two main people may inquire. We do not want to impose the burden of a necessity to inform all people down to second cousins or to have a situation such as that about which the hon. Gentleman is rightly worried. It is highly appropriate and desirable to keep families informed through a main person or, if one person is insufficient, a couple of people.

Bridget Prentice: The Opposition have a point, and I hope that the Under-Secretary will give us some reassurance. I am sure that many of us are aware of people who jump on bandwagons at times of crisis for families in such
 circumstances. Such people, usually a makeshift organisation, persuade families in emotional difficulties to take them on board, and front up the complaints system. I hope that the Under-Secretary will ensure that such people will not have to be constantly kept informed.

Bob Ainsworth: I hope that some of my comments have reassured my hon. Friend. We are discussing a person who has been identified as responsible for keeping a family informed. Obviously if they do not want to be informed, that will not be forced on them. We do not intend to give everyone a right to be kept informed but only a main individual.
 In addition, a complaint does not have to be made for an investigation to be conducted. The commission may decide to conduct an investigation without a complaint having been made, in a proactive way. In such circumstances, we need the legal ability, which the Bill would lack if the amendments were not made, to keep a family member informed of progress. 
 Hon. Members are right about the burden that could result if we do not get this right. I am sure that everyone agrees with the sentiment behind the proposal and that we must have the legal ability to do what we want competently and without imposing a duty on organisations that would detract from their main purpose of conducting the investigation. The points have been well made and are well accepted, and I hope that we shall satisfy hon. Members when we draft the regulations. 
 Amendment agreed to. 
 Amendments made: No. 155, in page 117, line 5, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert— 
'(4) It shall be the duty of the Commission to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A) if criminal proceedings are brought against any person by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any matters dealt with in a report copied to him under sub-paragraph (2)(c). 
 (4A) Those persons are— 
 (a) in the case of a complaint, the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and 
 (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section.'.
 No. 156, in page 117, line 46, leave out from '(7)(b)' to 'setting', in line 48, and insert 
'the Commission shall give a notification to— 
 (a) in the case of a complaint, to the complainant and to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and 
 (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section. 
 (8A) The notification required by sub-paragraph (8) is one'.
 No. 157, in page 117, line 50, leave out 'that determination' and insert 
'the Commission's determination under sub-paragraph (7)(b)'.
 No. 158, in page 118, line 31, leave out sub-paragraph (4) and insert— 
'(4) It shall be the duty of the appropriate authority to notify the persons mentioned in sub-paragraph (4A) if criminal proceedings are brought against any person by the Director of Public Prosecutions in respect of any matters dealt with in a report copied to him under sub-paragraph (2)(b). 
 (4A) Those persons are— 
 (a) in the case of a complaint, the complainant and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and 
 (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section.'.
 No. 159, in page 119, line 3, leave out from '(5)' to 'setting', in line 5, and insert 
'the appropriate authority shall give a notification to— 
 (a) in the case of a complaint, to the complainant and to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant); and 
 (b) in the case of a recordable conduct matter, to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to that matter under that section. 
 (6A) The notification required by sub-paragraph (6) is one'
 No. 160, in page 119, line 7, leave out 'that sub-paragraph' and insert 'sub-paragraph (5)'. 
 No. 161, in page 119, line 36, after 'authority' insert 
', every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant)'.
 No. 162, in page 120, line 39, after 'complainant;' insert— 
'(bb) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.
 No. 163, in page 120, line 45, after 'complainant;' insert— 
'(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.
 No. 164, in page 121, line 35, after 'complainant;' insert— 
'(bb) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.
 No. 165, in page 121, line 41, after 'complainant;' insert— 
'(aa) to every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant);'.
 No. 166, in page 123, line 14, after 'complainant' insert 
'and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant)'.
 No. 167, in page 123, line 24, after 'complainant' insert 
'and every person entitled to be kept properly informed in relation to the complaint under section (Duty to provide information for certain persons other than complainant)'.—[Mr. Ainsworth.]
 Schedule 3, as amended, agreed to.

Clause 13 - Direction and control matters

Bob Ainsworth: I beg to move amendment No. 153, in page 12, line 42, leave out 'or conduct matter'.
 It is necessary to make this drafting amendment to the clause to ensure both consistency in the Bill and that the Government's intentions are clear. In its current form, the clause excludes from the ambit of the new system any part of a complaint or conduct matter that relates to the direction and control of a police force. However, the Bill defines conduct matters as matters that relate to conduct, which could give rise to criminal or disciplinary proceedings. In contrast, direction and control refers to operational matters that relate to the deployment and administration of policing. There is no question of disciplinary or criminal misconduct if no question of disciplinary or criminal misconduct arises. Therefore, any matter that could give rise to criminal or disciplinary proceedings would not be a legitimate direction and control issue and should not be excluded from the remit of the new system. The amendment accordingly removes conduct matters from the scope of the clause.

Nick Hawkins: I was slightly puzzled, because the Under-Secretary seemed to be saying that the provision should never have been in the Bill in the first place. Was there simply a drafting error that was realised when someone came to look at the clause? It seemed clear that the Under-Secretary was firm that conduct matters should not be in schedule 3, so I wonder how the provision came to be in Bill. I do not know whether he can shed any light on that, as I am sure that it was not down to him personally. I do not have a problem with the amendment.

Bob Ainsworth: To be honest, I cannot shed light on the origin of the provision. The arguments for removing it are fairly straightforward, and I ask for the hon. Gentleman's support in doing so.
 Amendment agreed to.

Norman Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 13, line 9, at end insert—
'(4) All police authorities, in carrying out their duties with respect to the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force, and all inspectors of constabulary, in carrying out their duties with respect to the efficiency and effectiveness of police forces, shall keep themselves informed as to the working of this section.'.
 As we have heard, the clause is about handling complaints relating to direction and control matters, which are of course outside the scope of the IPCC. Section 77 of the Police Act 1996 requires police authorities as part of their duty to maintain 
''an efficient and effective police force'',
 and says that they should 
''keep themselves informed as to the working''
 of complaints procedures. That, of course, will be repealed along with the rest of the 1996 Act's complaints provisions, and will be replaced with part 2. 
 Although the clause contains a similar provision to section 77 of the 1996 Act, it does not go far enough in tying police authority oversight of complaints to efficiency and effectiveness, and it therefore gives 
 those authorities insufficient scope to act if things go wrong. The purpose of the amendment is to try to get the Government to recognise that. Issues relating to complaints and direction and control go to the heart of the efficiency and effectiveness of the force. Police authorities have responsibilities in those regards. 
 The Under-Secretary will be aware that the issue was raised in the House of Lords. I have looked at the Hansard of that debate; my colleagues in the other place were not happy with the response that was given, and we are therefore having a second bite of the cherry by raising the matter again this afternoon. I hope that the Under-Secretary will be able to accept the spirit of the amendment. He may well feel that there is an alternative way of dealing with the matter, but the point about tying in police authorities to that aspect is important, and needs greater clarification than that provided in the Bill.

Nick Hawkins: As the hon. Member for Lewes says, the matter was raised in another place. Given that such duties were included under the 1996 Act, it would be helpful to have the words in the amendment in the Bill, or at least something along those lines. The hon. Gentleman has reasonably said that there might be other ways of dealing with the matter, and he and I will be equally interested to hear what the Under-Secretary has to say on whether there is any good reason why we the Bill should not have something equivalent to what was in the 1996 Act.

Bob Ainsworth: I cannot believe that the hon. Member for Lewes is seriously trying to persuade me to go along with his argument, otherwise he would have said that it was a probing amendment and his intentions would have been clear. That joke was not worth making, was it?
 The amendment would place an obligation on the police authorities and inspectors of constabulary to keep themselves informed about the working of the clause. In relation to the operation of the complaints system, police authorities, inspectors of constabulary and, indeed, chief officers are already placed under such an obligation by clause 14(1) and (2). I understand that the concern is to enable police authorities to get information about complaints-related matters. That would help police authorities with their wider functions, one of which is the function to maintain an efficient and effective police force under section 6 of the Police Act 1996. 
 However, the wider duties imposed on police authorities already necessarily imply incidental powers to see relevant documents and materials. It is for police authorities and chief officers to agree arrangements for the provision of such information to police authorities under the powers. It is important that police authorities hold their chief officers to account for the direction and control of the force, and information on complaints might be an important tool in doing that. 
 However, I see no reason to single out information about complaints, and I am not persuaded that there is a gap in the police authority's ability to call for information that must be plugged. We have not been presented with evidence of the problem raised by the 
 hon. Gentleman, and an amendment that referred to a police authority's duties on the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force would limit the obligation on police authorities. Police authorities have other duties—those on best value, for example. The amendment would impose no obligation on a police authority to keep itself informed about the workings of clause 13 when carrying out such other duties. That is why clause 14 refers simply to a police authority maintaining a police force. 
 The amendment is unnecessary and would not add anything to the Bill. Although I agree with what I perceive to be its spirit, I hope that the hon. Gentleman can see that the point is already provided for and that the amendment could narrow the remit. I ask him to withdraw the amendment.

Norman Baker: The Under-Secretary is illogical. First he says that police authorities have incidental powers and the amendment is therefore not required. Then he says that because the amendment refers to only the maintenance of an efficient and effective police force, police authorities cannot deal with best value. He cannot have it both ways—either they have the general powers or not. The amendment is an attempt to ensure that the requirement on police authorities is not weakened from the standard in the Police Act 1996, which is my fear. The Under-Secretary failed to deal with that point, but it is almost 5 o'clock and no doubt their Lordships will wish to reflect on the matter at a later stage. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
 Amendment, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Clause 13, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 14 and 15 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 16 - Provision of information to the Commission

James Paice: I beg to move amendment No. 123, in page 16, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) every employer with whom arrangements have been made under section 36.'.

Ann Widdecombe: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 124, in page 16, line 13, after 'officer', insert
'and of every employer with whom arrangements have been made under section 36'.
 No. 125, in page 16, line 28, after 'officer', insert 
'or employer with whom arrangements have been made under section 36'.

James Paice: Even though the Government have resisted our determination to include accredited community safety schemes in the commission's remit, it is important for the employers in such schemes to have a responsibility to provide information to the commission if required to do so. The people involved may be party to an incident that is the subject of a complaint. They may be accompanying a police officer against whom a complaint is made or involved in another aspect of an incident. They should be required to provide information to the commission. That puts the argument in a nutshell. I hope that even if the
 Under-Secretary does not reply, he will consider that point.

Bob Ainsworth: The amendments would place—
 It being Five o'clock, The Chairman proceeded, pursuant to Sessional Order D [28 June 2001] and the Order of the Committee [23 May 2002], to put forthwith the Question already proposed from the Chair. 
 Amendment negatived. 
 The Chairman then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary to dispose of the business to be concluded at that time. 
 Clauses 16 to 20 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 21 - Regulations

Amendment made: No. 168, in page 21, line 47, at end insert— 
'(kk) for applying the provisions of this Part with such modifications as the Secretary of State thinks fit in cases where a complaint or conduct matter relates to the conduct of a person— 
 (i) whose identity is unascertained at the time at which a complaint is made or a conduct matter is recorded; 
 (ii) whose identity is not ascertained during, or subsequent to, the investigation of a complaint or recordable conduct matter;'.—[Mr. Ainsworth.]
 Clause 21, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Clauses 22 to 27 ordered to stand part of the Bill. 
 Further consideration adjourned.—[Mr. Heppell.] 
 Adjourned accordingly at one minute past Five o'clock till Tuesday 18 June at half-past Four o'clock.